How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything

[Olm the Water King]

How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything

How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

...This method of doing science was then formalized by one of the greatest thinkers in history, Francis Bacon. What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It's a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not "true" knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment. Many people are surprised to hear this, but the founder of modern science says it. Bacon, who had a career in politics and was an experienced manager, actually wrote that scientists would have to be misled into thinking science is a pursuit of the truth, so that they will be dedicated to their work, even though it is not.

Why is all this ancient history important? Because science is important, and if we don't know what science actually is, we are going to make mistakes.

The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don't actually know what science is.

If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed.

...

 

[Lark]

Everything?

 

[Olm the Water King]

Everything?

Everything!




Ok, maybe not everything.

 

[Cellmold]

You mean people have distorted information about fields of inspection and interest they don't follow closely themselves?

And on top of this, that the search for understanding keeps on going with ever more information and questions? WhAaaaaaaaaaaaa....

 

[Coriolis]

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. I would reserve "truth" for the pursuit of knowledge about the spiritual world. Scientific knowledge is objective, accurate, and falsifiable. Science is very much about abstraction, in that explanations for how things work and why they are the way they are often start off that way, fueled by the sparsest of observations. Empirical study is what is used to test and validate these abstractions. An explanation that accounts for all of the evidence and can be used repeatably to predict future events becomes an accepted theory. Still, it is never proven, but remains open to reevaluation as additional observations are made.

Yes, the public very much has a "botched understanding" of how science works, beginning with misunderstanding the nature of a scientific theory.

 

[Poki]

Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word "science" that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?

So, we actually use science correctly everyday, we just misuse the word and that screws up everything? Sounds like the only people that this would screw up are talkers. Ns, lol

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. I would reserve "truth" for the pursuit of knowledge about the spiritual world. Scientific knowledge is objective, accurate, and falsifiable. Science is very much about abstraction, in that explanations for how things work and why they are the way they are often start off that way, fueled by the sparsest of observations. Empirical study is what is used to test and validate these abstractions. An explanation that accounts for all of the evidence and can be used repeatably to predict future events becomes an accepted theory. Still, it is never proven, but remains open to reevaluation as additional observations are made.

Yes, the public very much has a "botched understanding" of how science works, beginning with misunderstanding the nature of a scientific theory.

Very well written. I agree with everything except for "truth" being reserved for spiritual knowledge because I don't know what that means

 

[nonsequitur]

I probably got tagged here 'cause I've been ranting a lot about the culture of science/research/academia..

This article wasn't written by a scientist, and indeed, from the layman Karl Popper-inspired perspective, falsifiability is what distinguishes "science" from "pseudoscience".

There's been a lot of discussion in the last 70 years on scientific epistemology, the history of science, the philosophy of research/methodology as well as the philosophy of mind and construction of our perceived reality. Without delving too deep into any of these areas, there's very little agreement on what exactly "science" is, or how research (even as it is conducted as an "ideal", which it almost never is) relates to "truth" and "reality" - particularly on the macro/molecular/quantum levels where phenomenon cannot be directly observable through experimentation. Further, the way that a lot of research is currently being done - big data (proteomics, genomics, metabolomics, epigenetics, transcriptomics, any of the other billions of -omics) that is modelled and software predictions formed based on algorithms that "spot" patterns and are refined through statistical models - is completely out of the realm of the old paradigm of "science". In my mind, any descriptive of science as it currently exists needs to incorporate such contributions.

Also, this theoretical discussion of "science" makes no mention of existing structural problems. This includes problems with study replication that aren't limited to the social sciences. There are also several conversations that are going on revolving around correcting the reproducibility problem, addressing cognitive bias, throwing out publish or perish and impact-factor chasing, instituting open peer review, making it easier to retract bad/fraudulent papers, regulating institutional media/PR circuses, campaigning for open data and open access, etc. And that's just the systemic scientific problems, not including the "human element" problems with harassment and abuse, discrimination against women in science, PhD over-production, exploitation of (foreign) postdocs/grad students and inbred tenured faculty, all of which have been well documented and are known to affect the types of research that are published and promoted.

Even as I note that the author is a layman, professional scientists too are seldom educated on what it means to be a "scientist" - the training is more geared towards becoming a professional academic.. which is a completely different thing. Many professional scientists share layman naïveté with regards to general impressions of "science" being "objective" (because it's ego-boosting to think that our own perspectives can be completely removed), and rely too much on personal or institutional reputation to make judgment on scientific merit.

So yeah. I'm not sure that it's so much a botched understanding per se; since there's no one on earth who could pin down what exactly "science" is. What is obvious is that it's a highly complex, very human endeavour that differs in how it's conducted from field to field, is flawed in several different ways, and therefore produces self-serving theories, papers that get over-interpreted/misconstrued, and invites lots of self-deception. So I'm pretty much in agreement with Feyerabend. Science that stands the tests of reproducibility and time, and is found to be useful (yes, I'm very utilitarian) is good science. The rest.. well, it's also science, where discussion and dissent is necessary to improve and move things forwards. I'd just hope that the ratio can be skewed more towards the former.

[Apologies if this was rambling, long, and not particularly relevant. I'm pretty sleep deprived.]

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There is a big distinction between scientific theory and personal theory. Unfortunately many people don't understand the distinction and then we get the whole "evolution is just a theory" argument or similar arguments.

then when so-called science proponents say, "I believe in science," I also get a bit irritated. I think, "you believe in it the way someone believes in a religious belief system? Is it just rigid dogma to you? Do you question and investigate scientific findingd and 'truths'?"

It's fine to believe in THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, but I don't know if anyone should believe in science, at least not blind belief without verification. It's important to carry a certain amount of skepticism when approaching any belief or idea, especially those we think we hold to be true.

Sorry, not exactly on topic.

 

[Bush]

Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying "Study Proves X" one day and "Study Proves the Opposite of X" the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that "science" isn't all that it's cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.

How the author's botched understanding of 'science' ruins his explanation of 'science' which in turn further misinforms the readers' understanding of 'science.'

I'd mention things like hypothesis testing and sampling and freakin' chaos and repeatability and research bias that affect every single scientific study to some extent; and I'd ask about how this applies to fields like geology, medicine, astronomy, and climatology.. but I can't be bothered because holy shit the bolded

 

[Coriolis]

Very well written. I agree with everything except for "truth" being reserved for spiritual knowledge because I don't know what that means

There are many kinds of truth or ways of being true:

• Is it true that Mark's grandma died last weekend?
• Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
• Is it true that slavery caused the Civil War? Or was it economic issues?
• Is it true that there is a God?
• Be true to yourself.

Only the first of these questions is falsifiable, and thus would satisfy a scientific standard of "truth". But scientists don't use the word "truth" for this, any more than we speak of "believing" evidence or theories. Instead we refer to the accuracy of an observation or the validity of a conclusion; and we accept a theory that explains all observations and has not yet been disproven. Perhaps it is just because I have become used to this usage in my profession, but I tend to associate truth with everyday factuality (Mark's grandma really did die); honesty as in the legal sense (telling the truth doesn't mean it is accurate, just that you believe it is); or highly subjective matters like spirituality and personal beliefs.

There's been a lot of discussion in the last 70 years on scientific epistemology, the history of science, the philosophy of research/methodology as well as the philosophy of mind and construction of our perceived reality. Without delving too deep into any of these areas, there's very little agreement on what exactly "science" is, or how research (even as it is conducted as an "ideal", which it almost never is) relates to "truth" and "reality" - particularly on the macro/molecular/quantum levels where phenomenon cannot be directly observable through experimentation. Further, the way that a lot of research is currently being done - big data (proteomics, genomics, metabolomics, epigenetics, transcriptomics, any of the other billions of -omics) that is modelled and software predictions formed based on algorithms that "spot" patterns and are refined through statistical models - is completely out of the realm of the old paradigm of "science". In my mind, any descriptive of science as it currently exists needs to incorporate such contributions.

I think this is more a matter of scale than anything else, both in data and in time. Notwithstanding the new methods, it is still possible to use the yardstick of falsifiability, and to expect a theory to predict future outcomes predictably. How we get there and how long it might take to do so are what will be different.

Also, this theoretical discussion of "science" makes no mention of existing structural problems. This includes problems with study replication that aren't limited to the social sciences. There are also several conversations that are going on revolving around correcting the reproducibility problem, addressing cognitive bias, throwing out publish or perish and impact-factor chasing, instituting open peer review, making it easier to retract bad/fraudulent papers, regulating institutional media/PR circuses, campaigning for open data and open access, etc. And that's just the systemic scientific problems, not including the "human element" problems with harassment and abuse, discrimination against women in science, PhD over-production, exploitation of (foreign) postdocs/grad students and inbred tenured faculty, all of which have been well documented and are known to affect the types of research that are published and promoted.

Many of these problems are problems precisely because they fly in the face of the true nature of science. (See - I use "true" here because I am speaking of something qualitative and to some degree subjective.)

Even as I note that the author is a layman, professional scientists too are seldom educated on what it means to be a "scientist" - the training is more geared towards becoming a professional academic.. which is a completely different thing. Many professional scientists share layman naïveté with regards to general impressions of "science" being "objective" (because it's ego-boosting to think that our own perspectives can be completely removed), and rely too much on personal or institutional reputation to make judgment on scientific merit.

Much of how science is done is subjective, because that is an inherent part of human nature. THis applies particularly to motivations and choices of where and even how to focus one's investigations. When all is said and done, though, science (and engineering) still holds results to objective standards. That is a main feature that distinguishes it from other human pursuits.

So yeah. I'm not sure that it's so much a botched understanding per se; since there's no one on earth who could pin down what exactly "science" is. What is obvious is that it's a highly complex, very human endeavour that differs in how it's conducted from field to field, is flawed in several different ways, and therefore produces self-serving theories, papers that get over-interpreted/misconstrued, and invites lots of self-deception. So I'm pretty much in agreement with Feyerabend. Science that stands the tests of reproducibility and time, and is found to be useful (yes, I'm very utilitarian) is good science. The rest.. well, it's also science, where discussion and dissent is necessary to improve and move things forwards. I'd just hope that the ratio can be skewed more towards the former.

Utility applies more to engineering and technology, but otherwise I agree.

 

[Tellenbach]

One big problem I see with science (and in medicine) is the deliberate attempt by establishment authorities to shut down the practice of science by individuals, not associated with academia or corporations. It is very difficult to purchase certain chemicals for the purpose of experimentation. Instead of banning the sale of such chemicals, a better alternative would be to limit the quantity of chemicals sold.

One terrific development is crowd-funded open science, where volunteers pitch an idea for an experiment and interested parties contribute to it. The experiment is performed and streamed live over the internet and the results shared with everyone.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

How the author's botched understanding of 'science' ruins his explanation of 'science' which in turn further misinforms the readers' understanding of 'science.'

I'd mention things like hypothesis testing and sampling and freakin' chaos and repeatability and research bias that affect every single scientific study to some extent; and I'd ask about how this applies to fields like geology, medicine, astronomy, and climatology.. but I can't be bothered because holy shit the bolded

I think studies are valuable. Again, we should approach any findings with a skeptical but not dismissive approach. I think the author is a fucktard. It's true that we'll see headlines saying studies prove something. I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but maybe those headlines should say studies suggest something? Maybe it depends on the study. How many controls were in place? If it was using a sample group, how large and where were they drawn from, etc? For that matter, who funded the studies? I don't know. It seems like more and more I see people saying or citing a study to back up their own beliefs or truths, and that's fine, I guess, but are they really looking at the study and scrutinizing it or just latching onto them the way religious folk latch on to verses from their holy books but not necessarily examining deeper?

I'm not a climate change denier, but I want to know if studies of water temperatures in the arctic ocean accounted for this or that variable. Accuracy is important.

I'm just kind of rambling now. Do you understand where I'm coming from? You're a researcher, right?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Fuck Bill Nye though. Science without philosophy is like sex without passion.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

There are many kinds of truth or ways of being true:

• Is it true that Mark's grandma died last weekend?
• Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
• Is it true that slavery caused the Civil War? Or was it economic issues?
• Is it true that there is a God?
• Be true to yourself.

I agree with you about Mark's grandma. Swearing to tell the truth isn't a statement of truth. If I said I swear I'll tell you the truth then what is the truth value of that until I start telling you things? The causes of the Civil War are debatable and given the evidence accumulated on the matter it would seem that both slavery and economic reasons contributed largely to the causes of the Civil War. We can't say it was slavery alone because the institution has never before that caused a Civil War, not even during the Revolution. Also, none of America's neighbors which practice slavery ever erupted into Civil War. We also can't say it was purely because of economic reasons because economic issues have always existed yet never led to a Civil War. I don't think both reasons are exclusionary rather a combination of both along side the theories surrounding disputes between the right of the Union vs. the rights of the states all played a part in it. It depends on how one defines god. If god is objectively true then evidence is required just like it is for Mark's grandma.
"True to yourself," what does this mean?

Only the first of these questions is falsifiable, and thus would satisfy a scientific standard of "truth". But scientists don't use the word "truth" for this, any more than we speak of "believing" evidence or theories.

So wait, is there a scientific standard of truth?

Instead we refer to the accuracy of an observation or the validity of a conclusion; and we accept a theory that explains all observations and has not yet been disproven. Perhaps it is just because I have become used to this usage in my profession, but I tend to associate truth with everyday factuality (Mark's grandma really did die); honesty as in the legal sense (telling the truth doesn't mean it is accurate, just that you believe it is); or highly subjective matters like spirituality and personal beliefs.

So truth can be applied only subjectively or should we make a distinction between subjective and objective truth? How is subjective truth anything else but an opinion (an opinion someone believes very strongly)?

 

[Poki]

Science is all encompassing. Act of science is searching for truth of what is. Crossed me mind the other day, you have engineers and technicians in every field. Engineers are the theory people, let's test, group, organize, record, calculate. Technicians are the real life people, let's do, experience, learn, apply. Both go hand in hand, this is no different in mechanical engineering, social engineering, chemistry, etc. I am a technician by nature and enjoyment. I turn to engineering alot to help me as a technician so I can find a happy medium. All aspects of science are the same. It would do an engineer just as good to learn from technicians. Best of both worlds.

 

[Bush]

I think studies are valuable. Again, we should approach any findings with a skeptical but not dismissive approach. I think the author is a fucktard.

Agreed on all three counts.

It's true that we'll see headlines saying studies prove something. I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but maybe those headlines should say studies suggest something? Maybe it depends on the study.

Check this out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

Yeah, "suggest" is a better interpretation for most studies. Part of the problem is that media outlets talk about "proof" or what "science says." Like..

The author falls for that in a very meta way. "No you idiots, only hard science proves things!" (Really quite beautiful if you think about it. Well not "beautiful" so much as "totally groanworthy.")

Another "Jesus fucking Christ" example: There Are Only 5 Types Of People In The World According To Psychologists. Which One Are You? - I Heart Intelligence

THERE ARE ONLY 5 TYPES OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ACCORDING TO PSYCHOLOGISTS. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

no no no no no no gdi

I'm just kind of rambling now. Do you understand where I'm coming from? You're a researcher, right?

Disagree, yes, and yes.

 

[nonsequitur]

I think this is more a matter of scale than anything else, both in data and in time. Notwithstanding the new methods, it is still possible to use the yardstick of falsifiability, and to expect a theory to predict future outcomes predictably. How we get there and how long it might take to do so are what will be different.

Unfortunately, that's not really how most of biomedical science is done these days. The "new methods" aren't really all that new; genomics as a field is more than 15 years old, proteomics is about 13 years old, metabolomics is 10 years old and taking for example, the most basic sequencing project - the human genome project, or more recently the human microbiome project - that's not in any sense falsifiable because the information wasn't collected to test any theory. But their utility is indisputable and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wouldn't define that as "science". Falsifiability is a very very narrow qualifier of science that has long outlived its usefulness.

Many of these problems are problems precisely because they fly in the face of the true nature of science. (See - I use "true" here because I am speaking of something qualitative and to some degree subjective.)

Much of how science is done is subjective, because that is an inherent part of human nature. THis applies particularly to motivations and choices of where and even how to focus one's investigations. When all is said and done, though, science (and engineering) still holds results to objective standards. That is a main feature that distinguishes it from other human pursuits.

That's the argument that I'm making. We all have personal ideals of what "science" should be, but there isn't a common consensus precisely because it is subjective, and some people have higher standards than others. The "true nature of science" is something that philosophers have been arguing about since the advent of science, and as I mentioned, there's no consensus because there aren't any principles that are broad enough to cover all fields but at the same time maintain standards of rigour that are demanded in individual fields. In the end, what we are left with - whether something is judged to be "good science" or "bad science" is highly dependent on existing conventions within fields and sub-fields.

For example, as a structural biologist by training reading papers that come out of cancer research, I often think that there are a lot of inherent assumptions that aren't being addressed - when I bring them up, people who are "in field" either tell me that it's convention in the field that the assumption holds, or that previous work done by X has already established that the assumption holds. It's hard to make judgments if you don't have detailed knowledge of existing conventions in the specific field. Beyond common-sense honesty, not cherry-picking data, using appropriate statistical models (and there's even debate there about what is considered "appropriate"), not making stuff up etc, "objective" standards do not exist. There are certain fields where it's widely acknowledged that the literature is a complete mess of irreproducibility and speculative nonsense *coughs* stem cells *coughs* because established conventions are dodgy and the people in "high places" have enough name recognition to get published in high impact journals regardless of quality. At the same time, no one can argue that an entire field is "unscientific".

I'm just speaking as a life scientist within my own field since I don't have any experience publishing in chem or physics journals, but the peer review process that is supposed to be critical (in a sense specific to the conventions of the field) and inject objectivity is highly subjective, has large elements of luck and is also very political (i.e. if I nominate you to review my paper and you scratch my back and don't request extra experiments, I'll scratch yours when assessing the next round of grant reviews). Which is why I often question how science is more objective than any other endeavour.

Utility applies more to engineering and technology, but otherwise I agree.

When I mentioned "utility" it was not only with regards to engineering and technology or even medicinals/therapeutics. I was also thinking about what gets put out because of "publish or perish". In academic culture, volume is emphasised over quality, and I see a lot of work that can basically be described as intellectual chaff. There's so much crap out there that a lot of time is wasted trying to sift out what is relevant or well done.

Additionally, research is largely funded by taxpayers, and taxpayers should see direct benefit from their investment. Which is why I'm also for open data, open review and open access - publishers/aggregators charge researchers a fee (typically USD1500-3000) to review and publish a single paper, then put it behind a paywall so that researchers have to pay for access to their own articles (I linked to the article where even Harvard can't afford what publishers like Elsevier charge for institutional access) and the public can't read it unless they're willing to pay $30+ for a single article. It is a travesty, especially for medical literature. People (and patients) should be able to access/use this data/information. They have paid for it through their taxes. Funnily enough, there's a pirate bay equivalent for journal articles because so many graduate students don't have access to papers they need to do their work. Some patients have started using it as well.

This is why the ongoing discussions that I linked to are so important to people who care about science. IMHO, there's not much point talking about high-minded philosophical ideals that people have of the objectivity/"rightness" of science when the system in place has nothing to do with that.

Sorry, a lot of this is not specifically addressed to you, and I've pretty much done the full disgruntledoc rant, so I'll need to leave this thread. I get pretty emotional explaining what "the system" looks like from the inside.

 

[Coriolis]

Unfortunately, that's not really how most of biomedical science is done these days. The "new methods" aren't really all that new; genomics as a field is more than 15 years old, proteomics is about 13 years old, metabolomics is 10 years old and taking for example, the most basic sequencing project - the human genome project, or more recently the human microbiome project - that's not in any sense falsifiable because the information wasn't collected to test any theory. But their utility is indisputable and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wouldn't define that as "science". Falsifiability is a very very narrow qualifier of science that has long outlived its usefulness.

So you see merit in continuing to accept a theory that has been shown to be false, that is, without modification or revision? That works only as a limiting case, and must be identified as such. It no longer holds as a more general theory.

That's the argument that I'm making. We all have personal ideals of what "science" should be, but there isn't a common consensus precisely because it is subjective, and some people have higher standards than others. The "true nature of science" is something that philosophers have been arguing about since the advent of science, and as I mentioned, there's no consensus because there aren't any principles that are broad enough to cover all fields but at the same time maintain standards of rigour that are demanded in individual fields. In the end, what we are left with - whether something is judged to be "good science" or "bad science" is highly dependent on existing conventions within fields and sub-fields.

I do not think it is nearly that subjective. What I do see is individual scientists as well as certain groups and organizations that don't live up to the standards of science, some of which you related in your earlier post. That is much less a critique of the "standard" definition of science than of those specific people.

For example, as a structural biologist by training reading papers that come out of cancer research, I often think that there are a lot of inherent assumptions that aren't being addressed - when I bring them up, people who are "in field" either tell me that it's convention in the field that the assumption holds, or that previous work done by X has already established that the assumption holds. It's hard to make judgments if you don't have detailed knowledge of existing conventions in the specific field. Beyond common-sense honesty, not cherry-picking data, using appropriate statistical models (and there's even debate there about what is considered "appropriate"), not making stuff up etc, "objective" standards do not exist. There are certain fields where it's widely acknowledged that the literature is a complete mess of irreproducibility and speculative nonsense *coughs* stem cells *coughs* because established conventions are dodgy and the people in "high places" have enough name recognition to get published in high impact journals regardless of quality. At the same time, no one can argue that an entire field is "unscientific".

Why not? One can at least make the case that a substantial number of researchers in that field have fallen away from good practice, and that the field is suffering as a result. It has happened before/elsewhere, and humans being humans, will surely happen again.

I'm just speaking as a life scientist within my own field since I don't have any experience publishing in chem or physics journals, but the peer review process that is supposed to be critical (in a sense specific to the conventions of the field) and inject objectivity is highly subjective, has large elements of luck and is also very political (i.e. if I nominate you to review my paper and you scratch my back and don't request extra experiments, I'll scratch yours when assessing the next round of grant reviews). Which is why I often question how science is more objective than any other endeavour.

As someone who both publishes and reviews in the physics literature, I can attest to the fact that we have some of this, but I don't think it is as pervasive as what you are describing from life sciences. I actually see more reviewers with negative bias, who try to shoot down publications from people who are not their friends and allies. When we recommend reviewers for our own work, we avoid these people, but also avoid people who are too close in our professional network. Similarly, we decline to review papers of professional collaborators or acquaintances, even if on topics outside our collaboration. Again, more an indictment of scientists than scientific standards.

When I mentioned "utility" it was not only with regards to engineering and technology or even medicinals/therapeutics. I was also thinking about what gets put out because of "publish or perish". In academic culture, volume is emphasised over quality, and I see a lot of work that can basically be described as intellectual chaff. There's so much crap out there that a lot of time is wasted trying to sift out what is relevant or well done.

Additionally, research is largely funded by taxpayers, and taxpayers should see direct benefit from their investment. Which is why I'm also for open data, open review and open access - publishers/aggregators charge researchers a fee (typically USD1500-3000) to review and publish a single paper, then put it behind a paywall so that researchers have to pay for access to their own articles (I linked to the article where even Harvard can't afford what publishers like Elsevier charge for institutional access) and the public can't read it unless they're willing to pay $30+ for a single article. It is a travesty, especially for medical literature. People (and patients) should be able to access/use this data/information. They have paid for it through their taxes. Funnily enough, there's a pirate bay equivalent for journal articles because so many graduate students don't have access to papers they need to do their work. Some patients have started using it as well.

I see the highlighted in physical sciences as well. It seems part and parcel of a society that seems to have lost the will to be directly critical: to say "this paper isn't good enough to be published here". I honestly doubt the average taxpayer has the ability to recognize when their dollars have produced worthwhile scientific results, but all the same I agree with open access. It is not just good for the public, it is good for the advancement of science. I see more journals starting to offer open access, some universally, others if the authors pay an additional fee as part of their page charges. I hope this trend continues.

This is why the ongoing discussions that I linked to are so important to people who care about science. IMHO, there's not much point talking about high-minded philosophical ideals that people have of the objectivity/"rightness" of science when the system in place has nothing to do with that.

Sorry, a lot of this is not specifically addressed to you, and I've pretty much done the full disgruntledoc rant, so I'll need to leave this thread. I get pretty emotional explaining what "the system" looks like from the inside.

No problem. I work in the physical sciences, so if someone reads both our comments, they will have a more complete picture of what is out there. If anything, though, I think we need more "high minded" discussion of scientific ideals, if only to help things get back on track.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

One thing that I am disappointed that no one has mentioned yet is the idea of exploring reality/nature/truth is the concept of formal proof. Some ideas that have later been verified scientifically started as mathematical concepts. Even beyond that scope it would seem proofs could influence positively in an objective way our understanding of Nature.